Hillary Throws Her Hat in the Ring

21Apr

On Sunday, April 12th, Hillary Clinton officially entered the A.D. 2016 Presidential race by releasing a two-minute video entitled, Getting Started. With that video, Hillary “threw her hat into the ring” of A.D. 2016 presidential candidates. She wanted to throw a lamp, but her husband, Bill, and her campaign managers advised against it, saying she’d already thrown enough lamps.

The New York Times article (“Hillary Clinton Starts to Detail Rationale for Run as Campaign Begins”) described that video. Here are some excerpts from that article and my comments:

“Fought Their Way Back”

According to Hillary:

“Americans have fought their way back from tough economic times, but the deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top.”

First, as a group, Americans have not “fought their way back from tough economic times.” We have, so far, merely survived the Great Recession—but We the People haven’t “fought back” against anything except threats to cut our entitlements.

Our current economy may not be declining as rapidly as it did in A.D. 2008-2009, but the economy remains stagnant and, for most Americans, the Great Recession persists. Whatever “fighting” has taken place so far, that “fighting” is far from finished because our “tough economic times” aren’t over. They’ve just begun.

I won’t say that Hillary’s comment about “fighting back” is a lie, but it’s close.

Let Them Eat Slogans!

Advised that the French people had no bread to eat, Queen Marie Antoinette allegedly replied, “Let them eat cake”.

Hillary’s video seems to offer similar advice to the American people: “Let them eat slogans”:

“ Hillary claims that she’ll run in 2016 to ‘fight for American families so they can ‘get ahead and stay ahead,’ . . . .”

Hillary wants American families to “Get ahead and stay ahead”?

Gee, that sounds great.

But how’s that going to work?

In order to enrich and empower the New World Order and Global Free Trade, the U.S. government cut U.S. tariffs and thereby encouraged (some say, “forced”) U.S. corporations to relocate their industrial facilities to third world countries having dirt-cheap labor. When those corporations moved their industrial facilities to China, they took hundreds of thousands of U.S. industrial jobs with them.

Some of those corporations may soon return to America, but if they return they won’t bring the former jobs for American workers—they’ll bring back robots.

The American middle class was built on manufacturing jobs. Without those industrial jobs, how will average Americans ever regain their former levels of prosperity?

Unfortunately, no living politician (including Hillary) has, or can have, any real solution to the loss of America’s middle class. It’s gone and it won’t be back anytime soon.

The world has not only changed technologically (robots) and politically (global free trade), but is continuing to change at a breathtaking and accelerating pace. Only those who are sufficiently intelligent and educated to be able to understand and keep up with these changes are likely to prosper. The lower- and middle-classes are no longer competitive and are unlikely to ever participate in a real economic recovery at much more than minimum wages.

In the face of accelerating changes, Hillary’s promise to help American families to “Get ahead and stay ahead” is nothing but a slogan. It may offer some vague hope. It may feel good to some. But its objective value is no more than an “empty promise”.

The only way I can even imagine that any political movement might be able to rebuild American prosperity is to restore our tariffs, keep cheap labor out of our economy, restore a gold-based monetary system and essentially restrict the sale of products in the American market to Americans only.

Even if those strategies could work, what politician or political party could implement them? Too many Senators and Congressmen are already committed to the New World Order and will therefore not support strong tariffs, strong borders or preserving American markets for American producers.

If so, that must mean Hillary is going to restore constitutional money, prevent the government from going deeper into debt, hike tariffs and stop the invasion by illegal aliens—‘cuz that’s what I want!

But, of course, it’s not “my time”.

Or yours.

“[B]ecause it’s your time” is just another slogan like “Have it your way” and “Now, more than ever.” Such slogans might mean anything but typically mean nothing.

• Hillary’s slogans might’ve attracted votes when the economy was growing but, in the midst of an economic depression, her slogans are laughable. If an overt depression doesn’t strike before the A.D. 2016 election, it will arrive during the next president’s term of office.

Does Hillary have a slogan in mind that will inspire political support from people who are trapped in a depression and unable to find work or food? If not, she’d better start looking for one.

The recessed, probably depressed, and possibly collapsed U.S. economy will almost certainly be “the issue” of the A.D. 2016 election. But I doubt that there’ll be anything any politician or political party can do about it other than to advise patience and endurance. Gov-co can’t really raise taxes, borrow, or print much more fiat currency without causing further damage to the economy. The National Debt is too great to ever be repaid. What can gov-co do?

Even if America sees a significant jump in our GDP over the next few years, there’s no reason to suppose that such increase will be shared with the middle and lower economic classes. For lowest 80% of Americans (the Democrats’ natural habitat), our best days are behind us. Hillary’s slogans won’t change or ultimately conceal that truth.

2) “A cooked goose in every pot!” (That goose, of course, will be yours.)

I know, I know . . . my suggested slogans seem a little harsh.

Still, in American politics, tough times call for tough slogans.

Why? Because, faced with the current economic problems, QEs 1, 2 and 3 have had only marginal effect. Today, painless solutions are virtually impossible. Therefore, all any politician can offer is “slogans”.

Could it be that all Hillary has for us is an assortment of slogans?

If so, is she taking her campaign on the road to tell us what she’s got? Or is she driving around the country in search of something to say that has a little more depth than a slogan?

“Those at the Top”

Hillary surprised me when she said,

“Americans have fought their way back from tough economic times, but the deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top.”

It’s true that “the deck is stacked in favor of those at the top”—but that’s not news. We’ve understood that bias for as long as we’ve known the “golden rule”: Those who have the gold, make the rules. “Those at the top” have gold. The law (and the economic “deck”) are therefore “stacked” in their favor.

The favoritism enjoyed by “those at the top” can be traced to modern political campaign contribution laws which allow “those at the top” to openly bribe Congressmen, Senators and even Presidents to enact or enforce laws that “favor those at the top”.

Even so, Hillary’s reference to “those at the top” is disingenuous since Hillary is a card-carrying member of “those at the top”.

Between herself and her husband, Bill, one or the other has been: 1) licensed attorneys; 2) Attorney General of Arkansas; 3) Governor (or First Lady) of Arkansas; 4) President (or First Lady) of the United States; 5) Senator from New York; and, 6) Secretary of State. More, she and Bill are multi-millionaires. If Hillary isn’t one of “those at the top,” who is?

Seeing that Bill and Hillary have fought all their lives to join “Those At the Top,” does anyone seriously believe that Hillary will now fight for the Great Unwashed and against “Those At The Top”?

I do not.

More, I’m suspicious of anyone who’s both a member of a particular class and is willing to betray that class. I.e., assuming Hillary is sincere in wanting to defend “American families” from predation by her own “Those At The Top” class, doesn’t her fight against “Those At The Top” constitute a kind of betrayal or even “treason” against her own “class”? Doesn’t her alleged willingness to betray her own class illuminate her own lack of allegiance to any one, any class and perhaps any nation—other than herself?

Is it safe to elect someone to fight for “American families” who may have no loyalty to anyone but herself?

• Questions about Hillary’s capacity for loyalty are important in that it will take a team effort to win the White House. Teams are built on loyalty. If Hillary is known by her managers and key supporters to be incapable of genuine loyalty to anyone other than herself, who will truly “give 110%” to support her? Without her own capacity for loyalty, I doubt that she can inspire enough loyalty in a team of managers and supporters to do their best for Hillary.

Even Bill Clinton has backed off from helping Hillary except as a “background advisor”. Bill has expressed faint misgivings about Hillary’s chances of winning. According to one report, if Hillary wins, Bill plans to stay in Arkansas rather than move into the White House.

Unable to be loyal, I doubt that Hillary will inspire loyalty. Without her team’s real loyalty, her campaign is less likely to succeed.

Without her team’s loyalty, Hillary will win or lose the next election all by herself. We see her smile and laugh, but her loneliness is palpable.

Champion

Hillary: “Everyday Americans need a champion, and I want to be that champion.”

First, the probability that Hillary will actually serve as the “champion” for the lower classes to fight against her own top class is about zero. If the bottom 80% of America needs a “champion” to fight off the upper class, they’d better recruit one from their own ranks.

Second, our political “champions” tend to be activists, opportunists, narcissists and even psychopaths who are more prone to break laws than enforce them. Obama comes to mind. Wanting to be our “champion” reminds me of a “fanatic looking for a cause”.

We need a Chief Executive who’s more interested in executing and fairly enforcing the laws rather than seeking devices, rationales and executive orders to bypass those laws.

Third, what’s the difference between a political “champion” and a “dictator”? Is one man’s “champion” another man’s dictator? Hillary may want to be our “champion,” but I suspect that she really wants to be our “Big Brother Sister”.

Strategies

Focus on Voters.

“Mrs. Clinton’s aides say the video, with its focus on voters of all stripes—not on the candidate—captures the essence of what her message will be.”

The video’s focus on Americans rather than Hillary implies that her campaign managers understand that Hillary may be her own greatest liability since she may be perceived to be elderly and/or doesn’t come across as warm, fuzzy, friendly or loyal. Does Hillary understand that if she wants to win, she’ll have to minimize her own presence in the campaign?

If so, how odd. Most politicians are so egotistical, that they want to be seen in every video scene. But, here we have Hillary—who may be willing to take a back seat to the public in her own election campaign.

Hillary must really, really want to be elected.

Perhaps Hillary also wants to avoid being the center of attention.

I wonder why.

Small-Scale Events:

“Shunning mass rallies for small-scale events, Mrs. Clinton will hold round tables with educators and students in Monticello, Iowa, on Tuesday and small-business owners in Norwalk, Iowa, on Wednesday, settings that make it possible to connect with voters individually.”

It may be that Hillary is simply fishing in the “small-scale events” for some significant issue (or catchy slogan) that other candidates and so far overlooked—and claim it for herself. But if so, that search would also imply that Hillary hasn’t yet found a significant campaign issue. I.e., so far, she’s got nothing to say; nothing to offer; nothing real to “fight for”.

On the other hand, Hillary may shun “mass rallies” because she’s not confident that she can fill the seats. What’s more lame than renting a room that seats 1,000 for a rally that only attracts 75 supporters?

On the third hand, I wonder if Hillary’s avoidance of “mass rallies” is evidence that Hillary and her campaign managers know that Hillary can do pretty well in a one-on-one “personal” conversations and pretty poorly in one-against-many presentations to large audiences. If so, are they “shunning the mass rallies” to protect Hillary from making a significant gaffe?

Are they choosing to appear in small venues where the participants and the questions can be controlled? Do these small venues help avoid unexpected and embarrassing questions that might emanate from unknown members of large, uncontrollable crowds?

Again, Hillary’s video offers evidence that Hillary’s campaign recognizes that the primary obstacle to Hillary’s presidential aspirations may be Hillary, herself. Are her campaign managers trying to put Hillary in small, low-stress venues where she’s least likely to lose her temper, shoot from the hip, and say something not merely stupid but politically ruinous?

Like Obama, can Hillary speak in public without a script or a teleprompter? I suspect that Hillary can’t ad-lib without making serious gaffs such as her now-famous response concerning the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi: “What difference does it make?”.

Hillary may be a loose cannon who, under presume, can make just as many stupid remarks as Vice President Joe Biden.

I’d bet that Hillary’s candidacy has a 70% probability of being derailed by her own, unscripted, impulsive remarks.

Tea and Sympathy.

As Hillary tours America, listening to Americans’ stories of economic plight, she can offer sympathy—she might even claim to “feel their pain”—but little else. She might even provide a measure of illusory hope. But in fact, what can she really do to push, pull or inspire this country back to a real economic “recovery”?

For at least the past half-century, both major political parties have been irresponsible and self-serving. They’ve pushed America towards an economic debacle that’s just around the corner. What can any politician or current political party do to erase fifty years of stupidity and treason?

When it comes to regaining a level of national prosperity, the bottom 80% are screwed and likely to stay screwed for most of the balance of their lives. Insofar as that’s true, Hillary’s slogans are fraudulent and her strategies may only conceal the fact that she’s got nothing to offer but her enormous personal ambitions.

Predictions

We can’t count Hillary out. She might yet become President. But I’m betting that sometime during her campaign, she’ll either:

1) Say something so colossally stupid that the voters will turn on her; or

2) Say nothing at all, bore her supporters, and lose public interest in her campaign.

If Hillary had had any sense of honor or responsibility, after the Benghazi scandal she might’ve simply said, “I screwed up. I’m tendering my resignation. I’ve quit politics to go home to play with my grandchild.” I could have respected that.

But her political ambitions are so enormous and her arrogance is so great that she doesn’t care what she’s done or will do. She is shameless in her drive to become President. But, there’s something so unnatural in her obsession that it foretells tragedy—maybe for America; certainly for Hillary.

Hillary’s lonely drive across America reminds me of the movie Thelma & Louise. Of course, in this case there’s no “Thelma”—only a forlorn “Louise” frantically searching for a suitably high cliff.

5 responses to “Hillary Throws Her Hat in the Ring”

wholy1

April 21, 2015 at 4:07 PM

The amt of “foreign funding formation” Hellary and “it’s” philandering legal souse, Slick Willy, are aggregating indicates a long, boring LDT (Lame Dream Tedia) daily narrative of inane trivia for the distracted “Merikaan Mushroom Majority” vegetating on LDT dung-in-the-dark. Applying one of the two 2-word questions, “cui bono”, its probably the same LDT corps that will get the majority of the campaign funding and the 2-3 per cent margin for the “Karl Rove” election capture gambit. A hat will only be replaced by a towel on “election” night if the Bilderbergers decide that Jeb is the better choice.

Really? She can connect with a small portion of the population. What is likely is that anyone who is not known to be part of that segment will not have access to her. Those that she will talk to will be promoted as if everyone likes and/or admires her. Her campaign is betting on that the average person will say that although they don’t particularly like her, most of their neighbors do and therefore she deserves their vote.